september 26, 2002

September 26, 2002

Ralph KoltsPresented by:

Process–Product Integrity Audit (PPIA)NASA Engineering Quality Audit (NEQA)

Update

ATK THIOKOL PROPULSION

2

Agenda

Some Background The Genesis of PPIAs PPIA Observations, Purpose, and Scope

ATK Thiokol Propulsion’s PPIA and NEQA Experience Lessons Learned/Enhancements NEQA Results and Recommendations

Supplier PPIAs Experience Challenges and Action Plan


3

Background

During disassembly operations of a critical Space Shuttle component, it was discovered that some of the sub-assemblies were either missing or the wrong configuration

The part had gone through six different verification inspections without detection

Launch delays resulted while other units were disassembled and inspected

A “stand down” was ordered while a joint contractor/NASA team performed a line-by-line review of all production planning and related documents

Two problems surfaced: Planning documents did not always reflect actual shop practices or

engineering requirements Operators and inspectors did not view their stamps as a personal

warranty that the planning instructions had been followed


4

Stand Down / PPIA Observations

People perform tasks in a manner “they believe” makes sense and they are aware of things “they believe” are important.

Technicians performed tasks to the best of their ability, but they had given up on the change process Is the change request system responsive and timely?

Work instructions too detailed for craftsmen Techniques based on tradition, handed down from craftsman to craftsman Stamps and signatures used primarily as place-holders

How strong is “Stamp Warranty” awareness? Do people really feel free to stop because they can’t perform to literal text?

In-process redlines not incorporated Large number of sequence changes identified How often does Engineering review the process with performing personnel?

Are new tasks proofed? Do reworks/inserts get the same type of review and proofing?


5

Stand Down / PPIA Observations

Keys to a robust process: Pay attention to the changes – both intentional and unintentional Engineering must work closely with operators and be responsive to

problems and ideas High potential opportunities:

Repetitive tasks involving large number of small pieces New tasks inserted into a standard set of tasks (especially time,

temperature, pressure, materials) Long time span between repeat application of task High level of task variation permitted Limited direct interface between personnel setting requirements and

personnel performing tasks High dependence on inspection control of the task Low perceived consequences of not following literal text


6

Purpose of a PPIA

Match paperwork and practices – no disconnects Involves the people writing the planning and doing the

work A structured approach

Table top Process review Periodic validation and systems assessment

Reinforces stamp warranty


7

Scope of a PPIA

Processand Product

Integrity

Facilities andTooling

Equipment

SupportMaterials andDocuments

Drawingsand Specs

RawMaterials

Components

People

Work Instructions


8

ATK Thiokol Propulsion’sPPIA and NEQA Experience


9

PPIAs at ATK Thiokol Propulsion

PPIA program in place since 1993. Target is to audit 25% of RSRM processes each year.

PPIA effort offers intangible benefits Team building Re-enforces values Identifies and corrects system weaknesses Reduces process creep

Six steps to accomplish a PPIA review: Kickoff meeting Paper review Live review Table top with other affected team members Management review Incorporate changes/improvements


10

ATK Thiokol Propulsion’s PPIA History

YearProcesses

AuditedFindings

Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Totals

1994 61 0 115 3,785 3,900

1995 120 0 67 6,026 6,093

1996 69 0 56 3,336 3,392

1997 81 0 25 3,251 3,276

1998 67 0 37 2,222 2,259

1999 28 0 20 925 945

2000 86 0 43 3,259 3,302

2001 70 0 19 3,951 3,970

2002 63 0 18 1,680 1,698

Totals 645 0 400 28,435 28,835


11

Lessons Learned - Enhancements

Need to periodically reinvigorate PPIA efforts Ensure personnel are given the time and priority to

perform PPIAs Recent enhancements:

Leadership is now a required team member Strengthened involvement of operators (minimum of 2) Included an independent team facilitator Added a minimum quorum for team to proceed Strengthened work team involvement by convening a table

top review of the findings with other affected crew members Updated training for all PPIA team members


12

NEQA Results

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Num

ber o

f Fin

ding

s

'94 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02Year


13

NEQA Systemic Recommendations

PPIA culture is alive and well – but: Operators/teams too close to processes to recognize that

specifics in planning are missed Categorization of findings has become too controversial,

emotionalizes the process, and dilutes overall objective Conversion of automated shop planning appears to create

opportunity for errors On-floor opportunities difficult to sync with NEQA week Support materials lack specifics in planning


14

Supplier PPIA Experience


15

Conducting a Supplier PPIA

ATK Thiokol Propulsion PPIA Mentor assigned Supplier Orientation Supplier Implementation Plan Assignment of Redline Teams and Redline Team

Training Phase I – Conducting the Audit

Table Top Review Process Review

Findings, Categories, and Corrective Action Phase II Final Report


16

Supplier PPIA Experience

There have been very effective and successful supplier PPIA results: 19 suppliers completed PPIAs (see following pages for details) A total of 86 different processes audited Over 1500 findings identified and fixed – an average of 83 potential

problems corrected 83% of the findings are Category 3 (minor) and 17% are Category 2

(fix before next use); no Category 1 findings (flight safety) Overall, these PPIAs were extremely successful with significant

results: many disconnects found and fixed, process ownership strengthened, communication improved, greater consistency achieved, and process repeatability enhanced

In other cases, various challenges have resulted in half hearted commitments, false starts, and missed schedules


17

ICI FiberiteASRCGSATParkerEatonAMPACRobradTaycoCourtauldsDodge RegupolALCOANylokAccurate Cal DoranKirkhillSTADCOCytec FiberiteAMPACGlenairTOTAL

Carbon ClothPolymerFastenersSeals/GasketsArming MonitorOxidizerVent Port PlugHeater/SensorPolysulfideCork SheetAluminum PowderNylon FastenerLSCHeat TreatRubberMachiningGlass ClothOxidizerHeater Cables

6295272259615149663

86

127293266290

3145289307331216414363850

1617

1578

NUMBER OFPROCESSES

NUMBER OFFINDINGSPRODUCTSUPPLIER

Supplier PPIA History


18

Categories of Supplier PPIA Findings

Category 10%

Category 217%

Category 383%


19

Challenges

There have been missed or slipped PPIA commitments and schedules. A number of factors contribute to this: Contracts are being completed, materials are being phased out,

new equipment/facilities/processes are being qualified, key personnel have changed

In some cases we have not received the full commitment by the supplier. Many suppliers are going lean – they don’t have the time or people to commit to the PPIA. In other cases, we’re a very small percent of the suppliers’ sales

The PPIA is a considerable commitment of resources for the supplier, including time, people, and . . . money


20

Supplier PPIA Action Plan

Actions have been taken to re-energize: Benefits discussed at Supplier Symposiums PPIA mentor training class PPIA web page Suppliers identified and targeted for PPIAs Quarterly status review meetings

Further actions: Keep awareness, visibility, and commitment high PPIAs will be a component of overall supplier management plans

We are looking for a good opportunity to pursue funding options or other incentives to assist the supplier in offsetting costs

september 26, 2002

Documents

repetitive tasks

planning instructions

standard set of tasks

planning documents

production planning

performing personnel

line review

ppia observationspeople